Network Working Group D. Farinacci
Internet-Draft lispers.net
Intended status: Experimental P. Pillay-Esnault
Expires: September 8, 2019 U. Chunduri
Huawei Technologies
March 7, 2019
LISP for the Mobile Network
draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-05
Abstract
This specification describes how the LISP architecture and protocols
can be used in a LTE/5G mobile network to support session survivable
EID mobility. A recommendation is provided to SDOs on how to
integrate LISP into the mobile network.
Status of This Memo
This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.
Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2019.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
document authors. All rights reserved.
This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
(https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
publication of this document. Please review these documents
carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must
include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
described in the Simplified BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2. Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3. Design Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
4. Addressing and Routing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. gNB/eNodeB LISP Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
6. UPF/pGW LISP Functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
7. Compatible Data-Plane using GTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
8. Roaming and Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
9. Mobile Network LISP Mapping System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
10. LISP Over the 5G N3/N6/N9 Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
11. Multicast Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
12. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
14. SDO Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
15.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix B. Document Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-05 . . . . 23
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-04 . . . . 23
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-03 . . . . 23
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-02 . . . . 23
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-01 . . . . 23
B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-00 . . . . 24
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1. Introduction
The LISP architecture and protocols [RFC6830] introduces two new
numbering spaces, Endpoint Identifiers (EIDs) and Routing Locators
(RLOCs) which provide an architecture to build overlays on top of the
underlying Internet. Mapping EIDs to RLOC-sets is accomplished with
a Mapping Database System. By using a level of indirection for
routing and addressing, separating an address identifier from its
location can allow flexible and scalable mobility. By assigning EIDs
to mobile devices and RLOCs to the network nodes that support such
mobile devices, LISP can provide seamless mobility.
For a reading audience unfamiliar with LISP, a brief tutorial level
document is available at [I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction].
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
This specification will describe how LISP can be used to provide
layer-3 mobility within and across an LTE [LTE401-3GPP] [LTE402-3GPP]
and 5G [ARCH5G-3GPP] [PROC5G-3GPP] mobile network.
The following are the design requirements:
1. Layer-3 address mobility is provided within a mobile network RAN
supported by a UPF/pGW region (intra-UPF/pGW) as well as across
UPF/pGW regions (inter-UPF/pGW).
2. UE nodes can get layer-3 address mobility when roaming off the
mobile network to support Fixed Mobile Convergence [FMC].
3. Transport layer session survivability exists while roaming
within, across, and off of the mobile network.
4. No address management is required when UEs roam. EID addresses
are assigned to UEs at subscription time. EIDs can be reassigned
when UE ownership changes.
5. The design will make efficient use of radio resources thereby not
adding extra headers to packets that traverse the RAN.
6. The design can support IPv4 unicast and multicast packet delivery
and will support IPv6 unicast and multicast packet delivery.
7. The design will allow use of both the GTP [GTPv1-3GPP]
[GTPv2-3GPP] and LISP [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis] data-planes
while using the LISP control-plane and mapping system.
8. The design can be used for either 4G/LTE and 5G mobile networks
and may be able to support interworking between the different
mobile networks.
9. The LISP architecture provides a level of indirection for routing
and addressing. From a mobile operator's perspective, these
mechanisms provide advantages and efficiencies for the URLLC,
FMC, and mMTC use cases. See Section 2 for definitions and
references of these use cases.
The goal of this specification is take advantage of LISP's non-
disruptive incremental deployment benefits. This can be achieved by
changing the fewest number of components in the mobile network. The
proposal suggests adding LISP functionality only to gNB/eNodeB and
UPF/pGW nodes. There are no hardware or software changes to the UE
devices or the RF-based RAN to realize this architecture. The LISP
mapping database system is deployed as an addition to the mobile
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
network and does not require any coordination with existing
management and provisioning systems.
Similar ID Oriented Networking (ION) mechanisms for the 5G
[ARCH5G-3GPP] [PROC5G-3GPP] mobile network are also being considered
in other standards organizations such as ETSI [ETSI-NGP] and ITU
[ITU-IMT2020]. The NGMN Alliance describes Locator/ID separation an
enabler to meet Key Performance Indicator Requirements [NGMN].
2. Definition of Terms
xTR: Is a LISP node in the network that runs the LISP control-plane
and data-plane protocols according to [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
and [I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]. A formal definition of an xTR can
be found in [RFC6830]. In this specification, a LISP xTR is a
node that runs the LISP control-plane with the GTP data-plane.
EID: Is an Endpoint Identifier. EIDs are assigned to UEs and other
Internet nodes in LISP sites. A formal definition of an EID can
be found in [RFC6830].
UE EID: A UE can be assigned an IPv4 and/or an IPv6 address either
statically, or dynamically as is the procedure in the mobile
network today. These IP addresses are known as LISP EIDs and are
registered to the LISP mapping system. These EIDs are used as the
source address in packets that the UE originates.
RLOC: Is an Routing Locator. RLOCs are assigned to gNB/eNodeBs and
UPF/pGWs and other LISP xTRs in LISP sites. A formal definition
of an RLOC can be found in [RFC6830].
Mapping System: Is the LISP mapping database system that stores EID-
to-RLOC mappings. The mapping system is centralized for use and
distributed to scale and secure deployment. LISP Map-Register
messages are used to publish mappings and LISP Map-Requests
messages are used to lookup mappings. LISP Map-Reply messages are
used to return mappings. EID-records are used as lookup keys, and
RLOC-records are returned as a result of the lookup. Details can
be found in [RFC6833].
LISP Control-Plane: In this specification, a LISP xTR runs the LISP
control-plane which originates, consumes, and processes Map-
Request, Map-Register, Map-Reply, and Map-Notify messages.
RAN: Radio Access Network where UE nodes connect to gNB/eNodeB nodes
via radios to get access to the Internet.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
EPC: Evolved Packet Core [EPS-3GPP] system is the part of the mobile
network that allows the RAN to connect to a data packet network.
The EPC is a term used for the 4G/LTE mobile network.
NGC: Next Generation Core [EPS-3GPP] system is the part of the 5G
mobile network that allows the RAN to connect to a data packet
network. The NGC is roughly equivalent to the 4G EPC.
GTP: GTP [GTPv1-3GPP] [GTPv2-3GPP] is the UDP tunneling mechanism
used in the LTE/4G and 5G mobile network.
UE: User Equipment as defined by [GPRS-3GPP] which is typically a
mobile phone. The UE is connected to the network across the RAN
to gNB/eNodeB nodes.
eNodeB: Is the device defined by [GPRS-3GPP] which borders the RAN
and connects UEs to the EPC in a 4G/LTE mobile network. The
eNodeB nodes are termination point for a GTP tunnel and are LISP
xTRs. The equivalent term in the 5G mobile network is "(R)AN" and
"5G-NR", or simply "gNB". In this document, the two terms are
used interchangeably.
pGW: Is the PDN-Gateway as defined by [GPRS-3GPP] connects the EPC
in a 4G/LTE mobile network to the Internet. The pGW nodes are
termination point for a GTP tunnel and is a LISP xTR. The
equivalent user/data-plane term in the 5G mobile network is the
"UPF", which also has the capability to chain network functions.
In this document, the two terms are used interchangeably to mean
the border point from the EPC/NGC to the Internet.
URLLC: Ultra-Reliable and Low-Latency provided by the 5G mobile
network for the shortest path between UEs [NGMN].
FMC: Fixed Mobile Convergence [FMC] is a term used that allows a UE
device to move to and from the mobile network. By assigning a
fixed EID to a UE device, LISP supports transport layer continuity
between the mobile network and a fixed infrastructure such as a
WiFi network.
mMTC: Massive Machine-Type Services [mMTC] is a term used to refer
to using the mobile network for large-scale deployment of Internet
of Things (IoT) applications.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
3. Design Overview
LISP will provide layer-3 address mobility based on the procedures in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] where the EID and RLOCs are not co-
located. In this design, the EID is assigned to the UE device and
the RLOC(s) are assigned to gNB/eNodeB nodes. So any packets going
to a UE are always encapsulated to the gNB/eNodeB that associates
with the UE. For data flow from the UE to any EIDs (or destinations
to non-LISP sites) that are outside of the NGC/EPC, use the RLOCs of
the UPF/pGW nodes so the UPF/pGW can send packets into the Internet
core (unencapsulated).
The following procedures are used to incorporate LISP in the NGC/EPC:
o UEs are assigned EIDs. They usually never change. They identify
the mobile device and are used for transport connections. If
privacy for EIDs is desired, refer to details in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity].
o gNB/eNodeB nodes are LISP xTRs. They have GTP, and optionally
LISP, tunnels to the UPF/pGW nodes. The gNB/eNodeB is the RLOC
for all EIDs assigned to UE devices that are attached to the gNB/
eNodeB.
o UPF/pGW nodes are LISP xTRs. They have GTP, and optionally LISP,
tunnels to the gNB/eNodeB nodes. The UPF/pGW is the RLOC for all
traffic destined for the Internet.
o The LISP mapping system runs in the NGC/EPC. It maps EIDs to
RLOC-sets.
o Traffic from a UE to UE within a UPF/pGW region can be
encapsulated from gNB/eNodeB to another gNB/eNodeB or via the UPF/
pGW, acting as an RTR [RFC6830], to provide data-plane policy.
o Traffic from a UE to UE across a UPF/pGW region have these options
for data flow:
1. Encapsulation by a gNB/eNodeB in one region to a gNB/eNodeB in
another region.
2. Encapsulation by a gNB/eNodeB in one region to a UPF/pGW in
the same region and then the UPF/pGW reencapsulates to a gNB/
eNodeB in another region.
3. Encapsulation by a gNB/eNodeB in one region to a UPF/pGW in
another region and then the UPF/pGW reencapsulates to a gNB/
eNodeB in its same region
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
4. Encapsulation by the gNB/eNodeB to a LISP xTR outside of the
mobile network. An xTR outside of the mobile network could be
a router in a data-center, a router at the edge of a WAN at a
remote branch, or a WiFi access-point, and even a gNB/eNodeB
in another carrier's mobile network. All these deployment
options are to be considered for future architectures.
o Note when encapsulation happens between a gNB/eNodeB and a UPF/
pGW, GTP is used as the data-plane and when encapsulation between
two gNB/eNodeBs occur, LISP can be used as the data-plane when
there is no X2 interface [X2-3GPP] between the gNB/eNodeB nodes.
o The UPF/pGW nodes register their RLOCs for a default EID-prefix to
the LISP mapping system. This is done so gNB/eNodeB nodes can
find UPF/pGW nodes to encapsulate to.
o The gNB/eNodeB nodes register EIDs to the mapping system for the
UE nodes. The registration occurs when gNB/eNodeB nodes discover
the layer-3 addresses of the UEs that connect to them. The gNB/
eNodeB nodes register multiple RLOCs associated with the EIDs to
get multi-homing and path diversity benefits from the NGC/EPC
network.
o When a UE moves off a gNB/eNodeB, the gNB/eNodeB node deregisters
itself as an RLOC for the EID associated with the UE.
o Optionally, and for further study for future architectures, the
gNB/eNodeB or UPF/pGW could encapsulate to an xTR that is outside
of the NGC/EPC network. They could encapsulate to a LISP CPE
router at a branch office, a LISP top-of-rack router in a data
center, a LISP wifi access-point, LISP border routers at a hub
site, and even a LISP router running in a VM or container on a
server.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
The following diagram illustrates the LTE mobile network topology and
structure [LTE401-3GPP] [LTE402-3GPP]:
(--------------------------------------------)
( )
( Internet )
( )
(--------------------------------------------)
| |
| |
(---------|---------) (---------|---------)
( UPF-pGW ) ( UPF-pGW )
( ) ( )
( NGC/EPC ) ( NGC/EPC )
( ) ( )
( gNB-eNB gNB-eNB ) ( gNB-eNB gNB-eNB )
(---/--\-----/--\---) (---/--\-----/--\---)
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \
/ RAN \ / RAN \
/ \ / \
( UE UE UE ) ( UE UE UE )
LTE/5G Mobile Network Architecture
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
The following diagram illustrates how LISP is used on the mobile
network:
(1) IPv6 EIDs are assigned to UEs.
(2) RLOCs assigned to gNB/eNodeB nodes are [a1,a2], [b1,b2], [c1,c2], [d1,d2]
on their uplink interfaces.
(3) RLOCs assigned to UPF/pGW nodes are [p1,p2], [p3,p4].
(4) RLOCs can be IPv4 or IPv6 addresses or mixed RLOC-sets.
(--------------------------------------------)
( )
( Internet )
( )
(--------------------------------------------)
| |
| |
(---------|---------) (---------|---------)
( UPF-pGW ) ( UPF-pGW )
( p1 p2 ) ( p3 p4 )
( ) ( )
( NGC/EPC ) ( NGC/EPC )
( ) ( )
( a1 a2 b1 b2 ) ( c1 c2 d1 d2 )
( gNB-eNB gNB-eNB ) ( gNB-eNB gNB-eNB )
(---/--\-----/--\---) (---/--\-----/--\---)
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \
/ RAN \ / RAN \
/ \ / \
( UE UE UE ) ( UE UE UE )
EIDs: a::1 b::1 c::1 x::1 y::1 z::1
Mobile Network with EID/RLOC Assignment
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
The following table lists the EID-to-RLOC entries that reside in the LISP
Mapping System when the above UEs are are attached to the 4 gNB/eNodeBs:
EID-Record RLOC-Record Commentary Footnote
0::/0 [p1,p2,p3 p4] gNB/eNodeBs encap to p1-p4 for Internet (1)
destinations which are non-EIDs
a::1/128 [a1,a2] UPF/pGWs load-split traffic to [a1,a2] for (2)
UE a::1 and it can move to [b1,b2]
b::1/128 [a1,a2] gNB/eNodeB tracks both UEs a::1 and b::1, (3)
it can do local routing between the UEs
c::1/128 [b1,b2] UE c::1 can roam to [c1,c2] or [d1,d2], (4)
may use UPF/pGW [p1,p2] after move
x::1/128 [c1,c2] UE x::1 can talk directly to UE y::1, (5)
gNB/eNodeBs encap to each other
y::1/128 [d1,d2] UE can talk to Internet when [d1,d2], (6)
encap to UPF/pGW [p3,p4] or use backup [p1,p2]
z::1/128 [d1,d2] UE z::1 can talk to a::1 directly (7)
where [d1,d2] encaps to [a1,a2]
(1) For packets that flow from UE nodes to destinations that are not
in LISP sites, the gNB/eNodeB node use one of the RLOCs p1, p2, p3,
or p4 as the destination address in the outer encapsulated header.
Encapsulated packets are then routed by the NGC/EPC core to the UPF/
pGW nodes. In turn, the UPF/pGW nodes, then route packets into the
Internet core.
(2) Packets that arrive to UPF/pGW nodes from the Internet destined
to UE nodes are encapsulated to one of the gNB/eNodeB RLOCs a1, a2,
b1, b2. When UE, with EID a::1 is attached to the leftmost gNB/
eNodeB, the EID a::1 is registered to the mapping system with RLOCs
a1 and a2. When UE with EID c::1 is attached to the rightmost gNB/
eNodeB (in the left region), the EID c::1 is registered to the
mapping system with RLOCs b1 and b2.
(3) If UE with EID a::1 and UE with EID b::1 are attached to the same
gNB/eNodeB node, the gNB/eNodeB node tracks what radio interface to
use to route packets from one UE to the other.
(4) If UE with EID c::1 roams away from gNB/eNodeB with RLOCs b1 and
b2, to the gNB/eNodeB with RLOCs c1 and c2 (in the rightmost region),
packets destined toward the Internet, can use any UPF/pGW. Any
packets that flow back from the Internet can use any UPF/pGW. In
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
either case, the UPF/pGW is informed by the mapping system that the
UE with EID c::1 has new RLOCs and should now encapsulate to either
RLOC c1 or c2.
(5) When UE with EID x::1 is attached to gNB/eNodeB with RLOCs c1 and
c2 and UE with EID y::1 is attached to gNB/eNodeB with RLOCs d1 and
d2, they can talk directly, on the shortest path to each gNB/eNodeB,
when each encapsulate packets to each other's RLOCs.
(6) When packets from UE with EID y::1 are destined for the Internet,
the gNB/eNodeB with RLOCs d1 and d2 that the UE is attached to can
use any exit UPF/pGWs RLOCs p1, p2, p3, or p4.
(7) UE with EID z::1 can talk directory to UE with EID a::1 by each
gNB/eNodeB they are attached to encapsulsates to each other's RLOCs.
In case (5), the two gNB/eNodeB's were in the same region. In this
case, the gNB/eNodeBs are in different regions.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
The following abbreviated diagram shows a topology that illustrates
how a UE roams with LISP across UPF/pGW regions:
(--------------------------------------------)
( )
( Internet )
( )
(--------------------------------------------)
| |
| |
(---------|---------) (---------|---------)
( UPF-pGW ) ( UPF-pGW )
( p1 p2 ) ( p3 p4 )
( ) ( )
( NGC/EPC ) ( NGC/EPC )
( ) ( )
( a1 a2 b1 b2 ) ( c1 c2 d1 d2 )
( gNB-eNB gNB-eNB ) ( gNB-eNB gNB-eNB )
(---/--\-----/--\---) (---/--\-----/--\---)
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \ / \ / \
/ \ / \
/ RAN \ / RAN \
/ \ / \
( UE ------------------------------> UE )
a::1 a::1
UE EID Mobility
The contents of the LISP mapping database before UE moves:
EID-Record RLOC-Record Commentary
0::/0 [p1,p2,p3,p4] gNB/eNodeB [a1,a2] encaps to p1-p4 for Internet
destinations when a::1 on gNB/eNodeB [a1,a2]
a::1/128 [a1,a2] Before UE moves to other UPF/pGW region
The contents of the LISP mapping database after UE moves:
EID-Record RLOC-Record Commentary
0::/0 [p1,p2,p3,p4] gNB/eNodeB [d1,d2] encaps to p1-p4 for Internet
destinations when a::1 moves to gNB/eNodeB
[d1,d2]
a::1/128 [d1,d2] After UE moves to new UPF/pGW region
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
4. Addressing and Routing
UE based EID addresses will be IPv6 addresses. It will be determined
at a future time what length the IPv6 prefix will be to cover all UEs
in a mobile network. This coarse IPv6 prefix is called an EID-prefix
where more-specific EID-prefixes will be allocated out of it for each
UPF/pGW node. Each UPF/pGW node is responsible for advertising the
more-specific EID-prefix into the Internet routing system so they can
attract packets from non-EIDs nodes to UE EIDs.
An RLOC address will either be an IPv4 or IPv6 address depending on
the support for single or dual-stack address-family in the NGC/EPC
network. An RLOC-set in the mapping system can have a mixed address-
family locator set. There is no requirement for the NGC/EPC to
change to support one address-family or the other. And there is no
requirement for the NGC/EPC network to support IPv4 multicast or IPv6
multicast. The LISP overlay will support both.
The only requirement for RLOC addresses is that they are routable in
the NGC/EPC and the Internet core network.
The requirements of the LISP and GTP data-plane overlay is to support
a layer-3 overlay network only. There is no architectural
requirement to support layer-2 overlays. However, operators may want
to provide a layer-2 LAN service over their mobile network. Details
about how LISP supports layer-2 overlays can be found in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility].
5. gNB/eNodeB LISP Functionality
The gNB/eNodeB node runs as a LISP xTR for control-plane
functionality and runs GTP for data-plane functionality. Optionally,
the LISP data-plane can be used to establish dynamic tunnels from one
gNB/eNodeB node to another gNB/eNodeB node.
The gNB/eNodeB LISP xTR will follow the procedures of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] to discover UE based EIDs, track them by
monitoring liveness, registering them when appear, and deregistering
them when they move away. Since the gNB/eNodeB node is an xTR, it is
acting as a layer-3 router and the GTP tunnel from the gNB/eNodeB
node to the UPF/pGW node is realizing a layer-3 overlay. This will
provide scaling benefits since broadcast and link-local multicast
packets won't have to travel across the NGC/EPC to the UPF/pGW node.
A day in the life of a UE originated packet:
1. The UE node originates an IP packet over the RAN.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
2. The gNB/eNodeB receives the packet, extracts the source address
from the packet, learns the UE based EID, stores its RAN location
locally and registers the EID to the mapping system.
3. The gNB/eNodeB extracts the destination address, looks up the
address in the mapping system. The lookup returns the RLOC of a
UPF/pGW node if the destination is not an EID or an RLOC gNB/
eNodeB node if the destination is a UE based EID.
4. The gNB/eNodeB node encapsulates the packet to the RLOC using GTP
or optionally the LISP data-plane.
It is important to note that in [I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility], EID
discovery occurs when a LISP xTR receives an IP or ARP/ND packet.
However, if there are other methods to discover the EID of a device,
like in UE call setup, the learning and registration referenced in
Paragraph 2 can happen before any packet is sent.
6. UPF/pGW LISP Functionality
The UPF/pGW node runs as a LISP xTR for control-plane functionality
and runs GTP for data-plane functionality. Optionally, the LISP
data-plane can be used to establish dynamic tunnels from one UPF/pGW
node to another UPF/pGW or gNB/eNodeB node.
The UPF/pGW LISP xTR does not follow the EID mobility procedures of
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] since it is not responsible for
discovering UE based EIDs. A UPF/pGW LISP xTR simply follows the
procedures of a PxTR in [RFC6830] and for interworking to non-EID
sites in [RFC6832].
A day in the life of a UPF/pGW received packet:
1. The UPF/pGW node receives a IP packet from the Internet core.
2. The UPF/pGW node extracts the destination address from the packet
and looks it up in the LISP mapping system. The lookup returns
an RLOC of a gNB/eNodeB node. Optionally, the RLOC could be
another UPF/pGW node.
3. The UPF/pGW node encapsulates the packet to the RLOC using GTP or
optionally the LISP data-plane.
7. Compatible Data-Plane using GTP
Since GTP is a UDP based encapsulating tunnel protocol, it has the
same benefits as LISP encapsulation. At this time, there appears to
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
be no urgent need to not continue to use GTP for tunnels between a
gNB/eNodeB nodes and between a gNB/eNodeB node and a UPF/pGW node.
There are differences between GTP tunneling and LISP tunneling. GTP
tunnels are setup at call initiation time. LISP tunnels are
dynamically encapsulating, used on demand, and don't need setup or
teardown. The two tunneling mechanisms are a hard state versus soft
state tradeoff.
This specification recommends for early phases of deployment, to use
GTP as the data-plane so a transition for it to use the LISP control-
plane can be achieved more easily. At later phases, the LISP data-
plane may be considered so a more dynamic way of using tunnels can be
achieved to support URLLC.
This specification recommends the use of procedures from
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility] and NOT the use of LISP-MN
[I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]. Using LISP-MN states that a LISP xTR reside on
the mobile UE. This is to be avoided so extra encapsulation header
overhead is NOT sent on the RAN. The LISP data-plane or control-
plane will not run on the UE.
8. Roaming and Packet Loss
Using LISP for the data-plane has some advantages in terms of
providing near-zero packet loss. In the current mobile network,
packets are queued on the gNB/eNodeB node the UE is roaming to or
rerouted on the gNB/eNodeB node the UE has left. In the LISP
architecture, packets can be sent to multiple "roamed-from" and
"roamed-to" nodes while the UE is moving or is off the RAN. See
mechanisms in [I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs] for details.
9. Mobile Network LISP Mapping System
The LISP mapping system stores and maintains EID-to-RLOC mappings.
There are two mapping database transport systems that are available
for scale, LISP-ALT [RFC6836] and LISP-DDT [RFC8111]. The mapping
system will store EIDs assigned to UE nodes and the associated RLOCs
assigned to gNB/eNodeB nodes and UPF/pGW nodes. The RLOC addresses
are routable addresses by the NGC/EPC network.
This specification recommends the use of LISP-DDT.
10. LISP Over the 5G N3/N6/N9 Interfaces
So far in this specification we have described how LISP runs on the
gNB and UPF nodes in the mobile network. In the 5G architecture
[ARCH5G-3GPP] definition, some key components are Access and Mobility
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
Management Function (AMF) and the Session Management Function (SMF).
These two components provide control plane functionality to off-load
session anchoring by distributing state and packet flow among
multiple nodes in the NGC. These functions can be deployed in Branch
Point Uplink Classifier (BP/ULCL) in data-plane nodes.
Here is an illustration where a B/ULCL-UPF node would appear in the
mobile network:
(--------------------------------------------)
( Internet )
+-> (--------------------------------------------)
| |
N6 |
| (---------|---------)
+-> ( UPF ) ( BP/ULCL ) |
| ( UPF [p3,p4] ) ( gNB gNB )
(---/--\-----/--\---)
/ \ / \
/ \
/ RAN \
/ \
( UE UE UE )
a::1 a::2 a::3
The BP/ULCL-UPF node is configured as an LISP RTR and uses the
Traffic Engineering features of LISP specified in [I-D.ietf-lisp-te].
In LISP-TE an Explicit Locator Path (ELP) can be stored in the RLOC-
record for any given EID thereby allowing packet flow from a UE to
the Internet to traverse through the BP/UCLC-UPF node. A UE
originated packet is encapsulated by the gNB to the BP/ULCL-UPF which
decapsulates and reencapsulates to the UPF at the Internet border.
This allows LISP to run over the 5G N3 and N9 interface with one
mapping entry. And if the ELP contained an xTR outside of the mobile
network, LISP could also run over the N6 interface.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
The contents of the LISP mapping database:
EID-Record RLOC-Record Commentary
0::/0 [ELP{a1,p3,p1}, 4 RLOC-records, 2 with paths through the BP-UPF
ELP{a1,p4,p2}, and 2 directly to the border UPF from UEs
p1, p2] connected to gNB with RLOC a1
a::1/128 [a1,a2] The UPF or BP-UPF can encap directly for UE with
EID a::1 to either gNB with optimized latency
a::2/128 [ELP{p1,p3,a2}, The UPF can encap to either RLOC p3 or p4 to
ELP{p1,p4,a2}] forward traffic through the BP-UPF on its way
toward gNB with RLOC a1
a::3/128 [ELP{p1,p3,a2}, The UPF can encap to the BP-UPF or directly
a2] to gNB with RLOC a2 to reach UE with EID a::3
11. Multicast Considerations
Since the mobile network runs the LISP control-plane, and the mapping
system is available to support EIDs for unicast packet flow, it can
also support multicast packet flow. Support for multicast can be
provided by the LISP/GTP overlay with no changes to the NGC/EPC
network.
Multicast (S-EID,G) entries can be stored and maintained in the same
mapping database that is used to store UE based EIDs. Both Internet
connected nodes, as well as UE nodes, can source multicast packets.
The protocol procedures from [I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
are followed to make multicast delivery available. Both multicast
packet flow and UE mobility can occur at the same time.
A day in the life of a 1-to-many multicast packet:
1. A UE node joins an (S,G) multicast flow by using IGMPv2 or
IGMPv3.
2. The gNB/eNodeB node records which UE on the RAN should get
packets sourced by S and destined for group G.
3. The gNB/eNodeB node registers the (S,G) entry to the mapping
system with its RLOC according to the receiver site procedures in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]. The gNB/eNodeB does this
to show interest in joining the multicast flow.
4. When other UE nodes join the same (S,G), their associated gNB/
eNodeB nodes will follow the procedures in steps 1 through 3.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
5. The (S,G) entry stored in the mapping database has an RLOC-set
which contains a replication list of all the gNB/eNodeB RLOCs
that registered.
6. A multicast packet from source S to destination group G arrives
at the UPF/pGW. The UPF/pGW node looks up (S,G), gets returned
the replication list of all joined gNB/eNodeB nodes and
replicates the multicast packet by encapsulating the packet to
each of them.
7. Each gNB/eNodeB node decapsulates the packet and delivers the
multicast packet to one or more IGMP-joined UEs on the RAN.
12. Security Considerations
For control-plane authentication and authorization procedures, this
specification recommends the mechanisms in
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis], LISP-SEC [I-D.ietf-lisp-sec] AND LISP-
ECDSA [I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth].
For data-plane privacy procedures, this specification recommends the
mechanisms in [RFC8061] When the LISP data-plane is used. otherwise,
the NGC/EPC must provide data-plane encryption support.
13. IANA Considerations
There are no specific requests for IANA.
14. SDO Recommendations
The authors request other Standards Development Organizations to
consider LISP as a technology for device mobility. It is recommended
to start with this specification as a basis for design and develop
more deployment details in the appropriate Standards Organizations.
The authors are willing to facilitate this activity.
15. References
15.1. Normative References
[RFC1700] Reynolds, J. and J. Postel, "Assigned Numbers", RFC 1700,
DOI 10.17487/RFC1700, October 1994,
.
[RFC6830] Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis, "The
Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP)", RFC 6830,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6830, January 2013,
.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
[RFC6832] Lewis, D., Meyer, D., Farinacci, D., and V. Fuller,
"Interworking between Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) and Non-LISP Sites", RFC 6832,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6832, January 2013,
.
[RFC6833] Fuller, V. and D. Farinacci, "Locator/ID Separation
Protocol (LISP) Map-Server Interface", RFC 6833,
DOI 10.17487/RFC6833, January 2013,
.
[RFC6836] Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and D. Lewis,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol Alternative Logical
Topology (LISP+ALT)", RFC 6836, DOI 10.17487/RFC6836,
January 2013, .
[RFC8060] Farinacci, D., Meyer, D., and J. Snijders, "LISP Canonical
Address Format (LCAF)", RFC 8060, DOI 10.17487/RFC8060,
February 2017, .
[RFC8061] Farinacci, D. and B. Weis, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP) Data-Plane Confidentiality", RFC 8061,
DOI 10.17487/RFC8061, February 2017,
.
[RFC8111] Fuller, V., Lewis, D., Ermagan, V., Jain, A., and A.
Smirnov, "Locator/ID Separation Protocol Delegated
Database Tree (LISP-DDT)", RFC 8111, DOI 10.17487/RFC8111,
May 2017, .
15.2. Informative References
[ARCH5G-3GPP]
"System Architecture for the 5G System", TS.23.501
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3144, December
2016.
[EPS-3GPP]
"Non-Access-Stratum (NAS) Protocol for Evolved Packet
System (EPS); Stage 3", TS.23.501
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/specifications/
specificationdetails.aspx?specificationid=1072, December
2017.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
[ETSI-NGP]
"NGP Evolved Architecture for mobility using Identity
Oriented Networks", NGP-004, version 0.0.3
https://portal.etsi.org/webapp/WorkProgram/
Report_WorkItem.asp?WKI_ID=50531, May 2017.
[FMC] "FIXED MOBILE CONVERGENCE",
https://www.ipv6.com/mobile/fixed-mobile-convergence/,
November 2006.
[GPRS-3GPP]
"General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) for Evolved Universal
Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN) Access",
TS23.401 Release 8
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/specifications/
specificationdetails.aspx?specificationid=849, January
2015.
[GTPv1-3GPP]
"General Packet Radio System (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol
User Plane (GTPv1-U)", TS.29.281
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=1699, January
2015.
[GTPv2-3GPP]
"3GPP Evolved Packet System (EPS); Evolved General Packet
Radio Service (GPRS) Tunnelling Protocol for Control plane
(GTPv2-C); Stage 3", TS.29.274
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=1692, January
2015.
[I-D.farinacci-lisp-ecdsa-auth]
Farinacci, D. and E. Nordmark, "LISP Control-Plane ECDSA
Authentication and Authorization", draft-farinacci-lisp-
ecdsa-auth-03 (work in progress), September 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity]
Farinacci, D., Pillay-Esnault, P., and W. Haddad, "LISP
EID Anonymity", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-anonymity-04 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-eid-mobility]
Portoles-Comeras, M., Ashtaputre, V., Moreno, V., Maino,
F., and D. Farinacci, "LISP L2/L3 EID Mobility Using a
Unified Control Plane", draft-ietf-lisp-eid-mobility-03
(work in progress), November 2018.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
[I-D.ietf-lisp-introduction]
Cabellos-Aparicio, A. and D. Saucez, "An Architectural
Introduction to the Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-introduction-13 (work in
progress), April 2015.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-mn]
Farinacci, D., Lewis, D., Meyer, D., and C. White, "LISP
Mobile Node", draft-ietf-lisp-mn-04 (work in progress),
October 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs]
Farinacci, D. and P. Pillay-Esnault, "LISP Predictive
RLOCs", draft-ietf-lisp-predictive-rlocs-03 (work in
progress), November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis]
Farinacci, D., Fuller, V., Meyer, D., Lewis, D., and A.
Cabellos-Aparicio, "The Locator/ID Separation Protocol
(LISP)", draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6830bis-26 (work in progress),
November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis]
Fuller, V., Farinacci, D., and A. Cabellos-Aparicio,
"Locator/ID Separation Protocol (LISP) Control-Plane",
draft-ietf-lisp-rfc6833bis-24 (work in progress), February
2019.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-sec]
Maino, F., Ermagan, V., Cabellos-Aparicio, A., and D.
Saucez, "LISP-Security (LISP-SEC)", draft-ietf-lisp-sec-17
(work in progress), November 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast]
Moreno, V. and D. Farinacci, "Signal-Free LISP Multicast",
draft-ietf-lisp-signal-free-multicast-09 (work in
progress), March 2018.
[I-D.ietf-lisp-te]
Farinacci, D., Kowal, M., and P. Lahiri, "LISP Traffic
Engineering Use-Cases", draft-ietf-lisp-te-03 (work in
progress), October 2018.
[ITU-IMT2020]
"Focus Group on IMT-2020",
https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/m/R-REC-
M.687-2-199702-I!!PDF-E.pdf.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
[LTE401-3GPP]
"General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) enhancements for
Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN) access", TS.23.401
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=849, January
2015.
[LTE402-3GPP]
"Architecture enhancements for non-3GPP accesses",
TS.23.402
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=850, January
2015.
[mMTC] "NGMN KPIs and Deployment Scenarios for Consideration for
IMT2020", https://www.ngmn.org/uploads/media/151204_NGMN_
KPIs_and_Deployment_Scenarios_for_Consideration_for_IMT_20
20_-_LS_Annex_V1_approved.pdf, December 2015.
[NGMN] "5G End-to-End Architecture Framework", NGMN
https://www.ngmn.org/uploads/
media/170511_NGMN_E2EArchFramework_v0.6.5.pdf, March 2016.
[PROC5G-3GPP]
"Procedures for the 5G System", TS.23.502
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=3145, December
2016.
[X2-3GPP] "Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN); X2 Application Protocol (X2AP)", TS.36.423
https://portal.3gpp.org/desktopmodules/Specifications/
SpecificationDetails.aspx?specificationId=2452, June 2017.
Appendix A. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Gerry Foster and Peter Ashwood Smith
for their expertise with 3GPP mobile networks and for their early
review and contributions. The authors would also like to thank Fabio
Maino, Malcolm Smith, and Marc Portoles for their expertise in both
5G and LISP as well as for their early review comments.
The authors would like to give a special thank you to Ryosuke
Kurebayashi from NTT Docomo and Kalyani Bogineni from Verizon for
their operational and practical commentary.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
Appendix B. Document Change Log
B.1. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-05
o Posted March 2019.
o Update references and document timer.
B.2. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-04
o Posted September 2018.
o Update document timer.
B.3. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-03
o Posted March 2018.
o Make the spec more 5G user-friendly. That is, the design has
always worked for either 4G or 5G but we make it more clear about
5G by using some basic 5G node terminlogy.
o Add a section how LISP can work on the N3, N6, and N9 5G spec
interfaces.
o Describe how LISP-TE can allow BP-UPF offload functionality.
B.4. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-02
o Posted mid September 2017.
o Editorial fixes from draft -01.
B.5. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-01
o Posted September 2017.
o Explain each EID case illustrated in the "Mobile Network with EID/
RLOC Assignment" diagram.
o Make a reference to mMTC as a 3GPP use-case for 5G.
o Add to the requirements section how mobile operators believe that
using Locator/ID separation mechanisms provide for more efficient
mobile netwowks.
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft LISP for the Mobile Network March 2019
o Indicate that L2-overlays is not recommended by this specification
as the LISP mobile network architeture but how operators may want
to deploy a layer-2 overlay service.
B.6. Changes to draft-farinacci-lisp-mobile-network-00
o Initial draft posted August 2017.
Authors' Addresses
Dino Farinacci
lispers.net
San Jose, CA
USA
Email: farinacci@gmail.com
Padma Pillay-Esnault
Huawei Technologies
Santa Clara, CA
USA
Email: padma@huawei.com
Uma Chunduri
Huawei Technologies
Santa Clara, CA
USA
Email: uma.chunduri@huawei.com
Farinacci, et al. Expires September 8, 2019 [Page 24]